Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

REBEKAH HARTY KRIEG

Rebekah Krieg Consulting West Richland, Washington, United States

EVA E. HICKEY and JAMES R. WEBER

Pacic Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington, United States

MICHAEL T. MASNIK
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C., United States

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Denition of Decommissioning Decommissioning Options and Activities Decommissioning Process Environmental Impacts Summary of Decommissioning Status of U.S. Nuclear Power Facilities 6. Conclusion

(3) solids into which such liquid wastes have been converted. Primarily in the form of spent fuel discharged from commercial nuclear power reactors, highlevel waste also includes some reprocessed high-level waste from defense activities and a small quantity of reprocessed commercial high-level waste. independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) A complex designed and constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage. The most common design for an ISFSI at this time is a concrete pad with dry casks containing spent fuel bundles. license termination Owners of nuclear power facilities in the United States hold a license that is granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This license is not terminated until the licensee can demonstrate compliance with specic criteria that detail the amount of radioactive material that can remain at the site following decommissioning. After the termination of the license, facility owners are free to use the facility or site for any nonnuclear uses they wish to pursue. low-level waste A general term for a wide range of radioactive wastes. Industries, hospitals, research institutions, private or government laboratories, and nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel fabrication plants) using radioactive materials generate low-level waste as part of their normal operations. These wastes have many physical and chemical forms and different levels of contamination. Low-level waste usually comprises radionuclide-contaminated materials (rags, papers, lters, solidied liquids, ion-exchange resins, tools, equipment, discarded protective clothing, dirt, construction rubble, concrete, or piping).

Glossary
boiling water reactor A nuclear power reactor in which water, used as both coolant and moderator, is allowed to boil in the reactor core. The resulting steam can be used directly to drive a turbine and electrical generator, thereby producing electricity. contamination Any undesired radioactive material or residual radioactivity that is deposited on or in structures, areas, objects, or people in excess of acceptable levels. decontamination The reduction or removal of contaminating radioactive material from equipment, structures, areas, objects, or people. greeneld One possible end state of decommissioning in which above-ground structures have been removed and efforts made to revegetate the site. Buildings may have been removed to below grade and then covered with soil. high-level waste Material that consists of (1) irradiated (spent) reactor fuel, (2) liquid waste from the operation of the rst cycle solvent extraction system and concentrated wastes from subsequent extraction cycles, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel, or

Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 4. r 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

409

410

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

partial site release The release of a portion of an operating or decommissioning nuclear power reactor facility site for unrestricted use. pressurized water reactor A power reactor in which heat is transferred from the core to an exchanger by hightemperature water kept under high pressure in the primary system. Steam is generated in a secondary circuit. Many reactors producing electric power are pressurized water reactors. spent fuel The depleted nuclear fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor, for economic or other reasons, or because it can no longer sustain power production (cannot effectively sustain a chain reaction).

Decommissioning is a technical and administrative process by which a nuclear facility or site is safely removed from service and residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that permits release of the property for either partial or unrestricted public uses. Decommissioning is a planned, systematic activity that is both remediative and administrative. Environmental impacts are generally less during decommissioning than during construction and, in the context of water use, may be less than during operations. Nonetheless, decommissioning does impact land and water use, water and air quality, and local aquatic and terrestrial ecologies.

1. DEFINITION OF DECOMMISSIONING
During nuclear power plant reactor operation, a large inventory of radioactive ssion products builds up within the fuel. Virtually all of the ssion products are contained within the fuel pellets, which are encased in hollow metal rods, hermetically sealed to prevent further release. Occasionally, however, fuel rods develop small leaks, allowing a small fraction of the ssion products to contaminate the reactor coolant. The radioactive contamination in the reactor coolant is the source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes generated in light water reactors during operation. Despite precautions to prevent the movement of contaminated material and to clean up any contaminated materials, such material is unintentionally moved through facilities by workers, equipment, liquids, and, to some degree, air motion. Contamination is most likely to occur in the reactor building, around the spent fuel pool, and around structures, systems, and components in areas near the reactor. During decommissioning,

remediative measures are utilized to eliminate ssion product contaminants. The second source of radioactive material encountered in reactors during decommissioning is from activation. Activation products are created when stable substances are bombarded by neutrons. Concrete and steel surrounding the core of the reactor are the most common locations of activated material. The spent fuel contains the largest amount of radioactive material at a facility that is being decommissioned, followed by the reactor vessel, internals, and bioshield. Systems containing smaller amounts of radioactive material include the steam generator, pressurizer, piping of the primary system and other systems, as well as the radioactive waste systems. Minor contamination is found in the secondary systems and miscellaneous piping. The denition of decommissioning provides for a denite starting point and ending point for the decommissioning process and for the evaluation of environmental impacts from decommissioning. Decommissioning starts after a facility has been removed from service. Thus, the decision to permanently cease operation of a facility and the activities and resulting environmental impacts from permanent cessation of operation (such as the change in water temperature of the cooling water body) are not considered a part of the decommissioning process. The decommissioning process starts with a planning and preparation process and then moves through a plant transition and deactivation phase, in which fuel is transferred to temporary spent fuel pool storage, the systems are drained and may be ushed, and support systems may be installed or moved. A third phase, decontamination and dismantlement precedes the fourth phase, compliance with relevant regulations for nal disposition of the site. Some activities that may occur during the decommissioning process could also occur during normal operations (such as construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of an independent spent fuel storage installation; transportation and disposal of the spent fuel, away from the reactor location; or disposal of low-level waste). These activities should not be considered exclusive to decommissioning.

2. DECOMMISSIONING OPTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Three approaches are generally the options used for decommissioning nuclear power facilities:

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

411

1. DECON. The equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site that contain radioactive contaminants are promptly removed or decontaminated to a level that permits cessation of operations and release of the site for public use (requires approximately 5 to 10 years). 2. SAFSTOR. The facility is made safe and stable and is maintained in that state (safe storage) until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled. During SAFSTOR, a facility is left intact, but the fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel and radioactive liquids have been drained from systems and components and then processed. Radioactive decay occurs during the SAFSTOR period, thus reducing the quantity of contaminated and radioactive material that must be disposed of during decontamination and dismantlement. The denition of SAFSTOR also includes decontamination and dismantlement of the facility at the end of the storage period. 3. ENTOMB. Radioactive structures, systems, and components are encased in a structurally longlived substance, such as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately maintained, and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity decays to a safe level. These options can be combined. For example, after power operations cease at a facility, a short storage period could be used for planning purposes, followed by removal of large components (such as the steam generators, pressurizer, and reactor vessel internals). At this point, the facility could be placed in storage for 30 years, and eventually the decontamination and dismantlement process would be completed.

2.1 DECON
Numerous activities may occur during DECON. Draining (and potentially ushing) any contaminated systems and removing resins from ion exchangers are early steps. Setup activities include establishing monitoring stations or designing and fabricating special shielding and contamination control envelopes to facilitate decommissioning activities. Reduction of the site security area (setup of new security monitoring stations), modication of the control room or establishment of an alternate control room may also occur. Site surveys are an important step. Decontamination of radioactive components, using chemical decontamination techniques also occurs. This often precedes the removal of reactor vessel and internals, removal of other large components (including major radioactive components), and

removal of the balance of the primary system (charging system, boron control system, etc.). Activities related to removing other signicant radioactive components are also undertaken. Decontamination and/or dismantlement of structures or buildings, temporary on-site storage of components, shipment and processing of low-level radioactive waste (including compaction or incineration of the waste), removal of the spent fuel and other non-low-level wastes to a storage facility at, or away from, the reactor site, and removal of hazardous radioactive (mixed) wastes are activities that may occur at any time during the process. Changes in management and stafng are also usually implemented. There are several advantages to using the DECON option of decommissioning. By beginning the decontamination and dismantlement process soon after permanent cessation of operation, the available workforce can be maintained. This is advantageous because the facility staff is knowledgeable about the facility and will not require the retraining that would be necessary should the facility be placed in storage for 10 to 40 years. A second advantage may be the availability of facilities willing to accept low-level waste. Low-level waste disposal sites available to reactor facilities may be somewhat variable from year to year, and there is not always a certainty that a site will be available in future years. A third advantage is that costs for DECON may be lower than for other options because the price for decommissioning at a later date is greater, factoring in the cost of storage and ination. Fourth, DECON also eliminates the need for long-term security, maintenance, and surveillance of the facility (excluding the on-site storage of spent fuel), which are required for the other decommissioning options. Fifth, completing the decommissioning process and being in compliance with relevant regulations for nal disposition of the site allow the facility and site to become available for other purposes. The major disadvantages of DECON are higher levels of worker exposure to radiation and signicant initial expenditures. Also, compared to SAFSTOR, DECON requires a larger potential commitment of disposal site space.

2.2 SAFSTOR
The SAFSTOR decommissioning option involves ensuring that the facility is in a safe, stable condition and maintaining that state for a period of time, followed by subsequent decontamination and dismantlement to levels that permit license termination. During the storage period of SAFSTOR, the facility is

412

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

left intact. The fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel and radioactive liquids have been drained from systems and components and processed. Radioactive decay occurs during the storage period, reducing the quantity of contaminated and radioactive material that must later be disposed of during decontamination and dismantlement. A number of activities typically occur during the preparation and storage stages of the SAFSTOR process. During preparation, there must be draining (and potential ushing) of some systems and removal of resins from ion exchangers, reconguration of the spent fuel pool cooling system, decontamination of highly contaminated and high-dose areas as necessary, performance of a radiological assessment as a baseline before storage, and removal of low-level waste that is ready to be shipped. These activities will occur at the same time or be followed by shipment and processing or storage of the fuel and other nonlow-level wastes, deenergizing or deactivating systems and equipment, and reconguration of ventilation systems, re protection systems, and the spent fuel pool cooling system for use during storage. Establishment of inspection and monitoring plans for use during storage, maintenance of any systems critical to nal dismantlement during storage, are the nal requirements of the preparatory stage. Changes in management or stafng could occur at any time. During storage, there must be performance of preventative and corrective maintenance on plant systems that will be operating and/or functional during the storage period. There will also have to be maintenance to preserve structural integrity, maintenance of security systems, and maintenance of radiation efuent and environmental monitoring programs. Processing of any radioactive waste generated (usually small amounts) must also be done during the storage period. Following the storage period, the facility is decontaminated and dismantled to radiological levels that allow termination of the license. Activities during this period of time will be the same activities that occur for DECON. There are several advantages to using the SAFSTOR option of decommissioning. A substantial reduction in radioactive material as a result of radioactive decay during the storage period reduces worker and public exposure to doses below those of the DECON alternative. Because there is potentially less radioactive waste, less waste disposal space is required. Moreover, the costs immediately following permanent cessation of operations are lower than costs during the rst years of DECON because of

reduced amounts of activity and a smaller workforce. However, because of the time gap between cessation of operations and decommissioning activities, SAFSTOR can result in a shortage of personnel familiar with the facility at the time of dismantlement and decontamination and a necessity to train new personnel. In some cases, this creates a knowledge gap because the people most familiar with the facility have long since retired by the time the storage period is completed. Other disadvantages are that during the prolonged period of storage, the plant requires continued maintenance, security, and surveillance and there are uncertainties regarding the availability and cost of future low-level waste sites, which could mean higher future costs for decontamination and dismantlement.

2.3 ENTOMB
The ENTOMB decommissioning option involves encasement of long-lived radioactive contaminants in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately maintained and surveillance is continued until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting release of the property. The purpose of the entombment process is to isolate the entombed radioactive waste so that the facility can be released to partial or unrestricted use. Therefore, prior to entombment, an accurate characterization of the radioactive materials that are to remain is needed, and the adequacy of the entombment conguration to isolate the entombed radioactive waste must be determined. To characterize the environmental impacts from decommissioning via the ENTOMB option adequately, two different scenarios were developed to encompass a wide range of potential options by describing two possible extreme cases of entombment. The two scenarios, ENTOMB 1 and ENTOMB 2, differ primarily in the amount of decontamination and dismantlement that is done prior to the actual entombment. ENTOMB 1 assumes signicant decontamination and dismantlement and removal of all contamination and activation involving long-lived radioactive isotopes prior to entombment. ENTOMB 2 assumes signicantly less decontamination and dismantlement, signicantly more engineered barriers, and the retention on site of longlived radioactive isotopes. Both options assume that the spent fuel would be removed from the facility and either transported to a permanent high-level waste repository or placed in on-site storage. ENTOMB 1 is envisioned to begin the decommissioning process in a manner similar to the

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

413

DECON option. The reactor would be defueled and the fuel initially either placed into the spent fuel pool for some period prior to disposal at a licensed highlevel waste repository or placed in an on-site storage. Any decommissioning activity would be preceded by an accurate radiological characterization of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) throughout the facility. Active decommissioning would begin with draining and decontaminating of SSCs throughout the facility, with the goal of isolating and xing contamination. The SSCs would either be decontaminated or removed and either shipped to a low-level waste burial site or placed inside the reactor containment building. Off-site disposal of resins and considerable amounts of contaminated material would occur. There would likely be a chemical decontamination of the primary system. The reactor pressure vessel and reactor internals would be removed, either intact or after sectioning, and disposed of off site. Any other SSCs that have long-lived activation products would be removed. Interim dry storage of the vessel, vessel internals, and any other SSCs containing long-lived activation products could occur on site until a nal disposal site for this waste is identied. Depending on whether the components are contaminated with long-lived radioisotopes, steam generators and the pressurizer would either be removed and disposed of off site or be retained inside the reactor containment. The spent fuel pool would be drained and decontaminated. The reactor building or containment would then be lled with SSCs contaminated with relatively short-lived isotopes from the balance of the facility. Material would be placed in the building in a manner that would minimize the spread of any contamination (i.e., dry, contamination xed, or isolated). Engineered barriers would be put in place to deny access and to eliminate the possibility of release of any contamination to the environment. The reactor building or containment would be sealed and made weatherproof. A partial site release could be completed for almost all of the site and the balance of the plant, thus allowing the remainder of the site to be used for other purposes. A monitoring period as long as 20 to 30 years would probably be necessary to demonstrate that the contamination was isolated and the structure was permanent. The general activities that would occur during ENTOMB 1 are planning and preparation activities, draining (and possibly ushing) contaminated systems and removing resins from ion exchangers, reduction of the site security area (optional), deactivation of support systems, and

decontamination of radioactive components, including use of chemical decontamination techniques. There would also be removal of the reactor vessel and internals, removal of other large components (including major radioactive components), removal of fuel from the spent fuel pool to a storage facility at or away from the reactor site, dismantlement of remaining radioactively contaminated structures and placement of the dismantled structures in the reactor building, installation of engineered barriers and other controls to prevent inadvertent intrusion and dispersion of contamination outside of the entombed structure, and lling the void spaces in the previous reactor building structure with concrete. ENTOMB 2 was also envisioned to begin the decommissioning process in a manner similar to the DECON option. The reactor would be defueled and the fuel initially placed into the spent fuel pool for some period prior to disposal at a permanent highlevel waste repository or placed in on-site storage. Any decommissioning activity would be preceded by an accurate radiological characterization of SSCs throughout the facility. Active decommissioning would begin with the draining and decontamination of SSCs throughout the facility, with the goal of isolating and xing contamination. The spent fuel pool would be drained and decontaminated. SSCs would either be decontaminated or be removed and either shipped to a low-level waste burial site or placed inside the reactor containment building or the reactor building. Disposal off site of resins would occur. The primary system would be drained, the reactor pressure vessel lled with contaminated material, all penetrations sealed, the reactor pressure vessel head reinstalled, and the reactor vessel lled with low-density concrete. Reactor internals would remain in place. Emphasis would be placed on draining and drying all systems and components and xing contamination to prevent movement, either by air or liquid means. The steam generators and pressurizer would be laid up dry and remain in place. The reactor building or containment would then be lled with contaminated SSCs from the balance of the facility. Material would be placed in the building in a manner that would minimize the spread of any contamination (i.e., dry, contamination xed, or isolated). Engineered barriers would be put in place to deny access and eliminate the possibility of the release of any contamination to the environment. The ceiling of the containment or reactor building, in the case of boiling water reactors, may be lowered to near the refueling oor and to the top of the pressurizer for

414

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

pressurized water reactors. The cavity of the remaining structure would be lled with a lowdensity concrete. The resulting structure would be sealed and made weatherproof and covered with an engineered cap designed to deny access, and prevent the intrusion of water or the release of radioactive contamination to the environment. A partial site release would be completed for most of the site and the balance of the plant, thus allowing the remainder of the site to be used for other purposes if appropriate. A site-monitoring program would likely be initiated to demonstrate the isolation of the contamination and the permanence of the structure. Monitoring could be as long as 100 years. The general activities that would occur during ENTOMB 2 are planning and preparation activities, draining (and potentially ushing) of contaminated systems and removal of resins from ion exchangers, deactivation of support systems, and removal of fuel from the spent fuel pool to a storage facility at or away from the reactor site. It would be necessary to dismantle all radioactively contaminated structures (other than the reactor building), with placement of the dismantled structures in the reactor building. The ceiling of the reactor building would be lowered to near the refueling oor (in boiling water reactors) or near the top of the pressurizer (in pressurized water reactors), and engineered barriers installed and other controls put in place to prevent inadvertent intrusion and dispersion of contamination outside of the entombed structure, lling of the cavity of the reactor building structure with low-density concrete, and placement of an engineered cap over the entombed structure to further isolate the structure from the environment. The advantages of both ENTOMB options are reduced public exposure to radiation due to signicantly less transportation of radioactive waste to low-level waste disposal sites and corresponding reduced cost of low-level waste disposal. An additional advantage of ENTOMB 2 is related to the signicant reduction in the amount of work activity, and thus a signicant reduction in occupational exposures, as compared to the DECON or SAFSTOR decommissioning options.

clearance for nal disposition of the site. The rst and last stages are primarily administrative. Planning typically takes 1.5 to 2.5 years, regardless of the decommissioning option chosen. The main activities during this stage are determining the decommissioning option, making changes to the organizational structure (such as layoffs, strategic hiring, and redeploying personnel) to prepare for decommissioning activities, and starting the necessary regulatory activities. One preparation would be conducting postshutdown surveys of the facility for contamination or activation material. Planning activities vary, depending on the decommissioning option chosen and on whether the shutdown was planned or unplanned. If planned, some preparations may have already been made. During stage 2, the plant moves from cessation of reactor operation to decommissioning activities. This stage will last from about 0.5 to 1.5 years, regardless of the decommissioning option chosen. Fuel will have to be transferred out of the reactor and into the spent fuel pool at all plants. Isolation, stabilization, or removal of all unnecessary systems is also conducted during this stage and new support systems needed for decontamination may be added. Changes to electrical systems, for instance, are common at this stage. Chemical decontamination of the primary system at this stage has resulted in reduction of total person-rem exposure during subsequent decommissioning activities. Chemically reducing levels of contaminants from piping, for instance, may signicantly reduce doses to which workers are exposed and will keep costs lower. Stage 3 involves decontamination and dismantlement of the plant for the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB 1 options. For ENTOMB 2, stage 3 involves dismantlement of all radioactively contaminated

Stage 1: Planning and preparation

Perform engineering and planning

Conduct postshutdown surveys

Stage 2: Plant transition/ deactivation

Transfer fuel to spent fuel pool

Drain and flush systems

Move or install required support systems

3. DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS
The decommissioning process, as shown in Fig. 1, can be divided into four stages, beginning with planning, proceeding through deactivation activities, decontamination and dismantlement and nally to administrative

Stage 3: Decontamination/ dismantlement

Decontaminate building and components

Segment and remove radioactive components

Empty spent fuel pool

Stage 4: License termination

Submit license termination plan

Final status survey

FIGURE 1

Reactor decommissioning process.

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

415

SSCs external to the reactor building and placement of these SSCs in the reactor building, followed by lowering the ceiling to the D-rings (pressurized water reactors) or the refueling oor (boiling water reactors). The greatest variability within a decommissioning stage is found in stage 3 because of the varieties of ways that systems can be dismantled. For instance, the secondary components have been dismantled at some plants in the United States, removing the moisture separators, diesel generators, and steam piping. Another plant has had its steam generators and pressurizer removed intact because transport and disposal facilities were easily available; the reactor vessel and internals were then removed whole (instead of having to be dismantled), lled with grout, welded closed, and shipped. For the SAFSTOR option, stage 3 includes the time in storage. Decontamination and dismantlement activities can occur before, during, and after storage in SAFSTOR, with the time for stage 3 varying from a few years to more than 50 years. In both ENTOMB 1 and ENTOMB 2, grout and engineered barriers are installed. A monitoring program is also developed for the ENTOMB options. For ENTOMB 2, stage 3 involves dismantling all radioactively contaminated systems external to the reactor building and placing them in the reactor building. In pressurized water reactors, the ceiling is lowered to the D-rings; in boiling water reactors, the ceiling is lowered to the refueling oor. Stage 4 is nal administrative termination. Activities for this stage, which are similar for all options, include nal site characterization, the nal radiation survey, submission of a nal termination plan, and a nal site survey. The ENTOMB options would include both a partial site release and a detailed site monitoring program.

plants thermal discharge, which may result in the loss of aquatic or marine organisms that have grown to be dependent on the additional heat from the facility. Potential environmental impacts during the decommissioning process include impacts on land and water use, water quality, air quality, aquatic ecology, and terrestrial ecology, in addition to radiological, socioeconomic, and aesthetic impacts.

4.1 Land Use

Land use during decommissioning is affected by the site layout. Most sites have sufcient area existing within the previously disturbed area (whether during construction or operation of the site) and, therefore, no additional land needs to be disturbed. However, some activities projected for decommissioning are expected to require land temporarily. Temporary changes may include expanded staging and laydown areas for removal of large facility components. In addition, the large number of temporary workers needed to accomplish the major decommissioning activities may require that temporary facilities be installed for on-site parking, training, site security access, ofce space, change areas, fabrication shops, and other needs. Widening and rebuilding access roads or creating or expanding gravel pits for building roads may occur off site, but plants that have been decommissioned thus far have not needed such additional land.

4.2 Water Use

Nuclear reactor facilities are usually located near or adjacent to signicant water bodies (aquifers, rivers, lakes, etc.) that are important to the region. Operating nuclear reactor facilities use water from multiple sources. For example, water from an adjacent lake might provide cooling water, whereas potable water may come from groundwater wells located on site. Reactor cooling is the greatest use of water at an operating reactor; other uses include waste treatment, potable water, process water, and site maintenance. In general, the impact of nuclear reactor facilities on water resources dramatically decreases after plants cease operation. The operational demand for cooling and makeup water is largely eliminated after the facility permanently ceases operation. Most of the impacts on water resources during decommissioning of a nuclear facility are typical of those during decommissioning or construction of any large industrial facility. For example, providing water

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In order to adequately describe the environmental impacts of decommissioning, it is helpful to separate the impacts from those that occurred during site construction or operation and the immediate impacts that occur as a result of the decision to cease power operations. In general, environmental impacts occurring as a result of decommissioning a nuclear power facility are smaller than those impacts resulting from construction or operation of the facility. Immediate impacts as a result of the decision to cease power operation include the cessation of warm water owing into the body of water that receives the

416

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

for dust abatement is a concern for any large construction project, as is potable water usage. However, the quantities of water required for decommissioning are trivial compared to those used during operations. Water use will be greater in facilities that are undergoing decontamination and dismantlement than in those that are in the storage phase.

4.5 Aquatic Ecology

Aquatic ecological resources may be impacted during the decommissioning process by either direct or indirect disturbance of plant or animal communities near the facility site. Direct impacts can result from activities such as removal of structures (e.g., the intake or discharge facilities) at the shoreline or in the water; the active dredging of a stream, river, or ocean bottom; or lling a stream or bay. Indirect impacts may result from effects such as runoff. If decommissioning does not include removal of shoreline or in-water structures, very little aquatic habitat will probably be disturbed. Thus, practically all aquatic habitat that was used during regular plant operations or, at a minimum, was not previously disturbed during construction of the site will not be impacted.

4.3 Water Quality

The major decommissioning activities that could affect water quality include fuel removal, stabilization, decontamination and system dismantlement, and structure dismantlement. Surface waters are most likely to be impacted either by storm water or by releases of substances during decommissioning activities. However, unintentional releases of hazardous substances have been an infrequent occurrence at decommissioning facilities. Because the focus of decommissioning is the ultimate cleanup of the facility, considerable attention is placed on minimizing spills. Certain decommissioning activities or options may result in changes in local water chemistry. For example, dismantling structures by demolition and disposing of the concrete rubble on site increase the possibility that hydration of the concrete could locally increase the alkalinity of the groundwater.

4.6 Terrestrial Ecology

Similar to aquatic resources, terrestrial resources may also be affected during the decommissioning process. Direct impacts can result from activities such as the clearing of native vegetation or lling of a wetland. Indirect impacts may result from effects such as erosional runoff, dust, or noise. During decommissioning, land at the site and the surrounding terrestrial ecology may be disturbed for the construction of laydown yards, stockpiles, and support facilities. Additionally, land away from the plant site may be disturbed by upgrading or installing new transportation or utility systems. In most cases, land disturbances will result in relatively short-term impacts and ecological systems will either recover naturally or will be landscaped appropriately for an alternative use after completion of decommissioning.

4.4 Air Quality

Decommissioning activities that have the potential to have a nonradiological impact on air quality include (1) worker transportation to and from the site, (2) dismantling of systems and removing of equipment, (3) movement and open storage of material onsite, (4) demolition of buildings and structures, (5) shipment of material and debris to off-site locations, and (6) operation of concrete batch plants. These activities typically take place over a period of years from the time the facility ceases operation until the decommissioning is complete. The magnitude and the timing of the potential impacts of each activity will vary from plant to plant, depending on the decommissioning option selected and the status of facilities and structures at the completion of decommissioning. The most likely impact of decommissioning on air quality is fugitive dust, although it should be less than during plant construction because the sizes of the disturbed areas are smaller, the duration of activity shorter, and paved roadways available. Best management practices, such as seeding or wetting, can be used to minimize fugitive dust.

4.7 Radiological
Radioactive materials are present in the reactor and in the support facilities after operations cease and the fuel has been removed from the reactor core. Exposure to these radioactive materials during decommissioning may have consequences for workers. Members of the public may also potentially be exposed to radioactive materials that are released to the environment during the decommissioning process. To date, doses from occupational exposures to individual workers during decommissioning activities at nuclear power facilities in the United States are similar to, or lower than, the doses experienced by workers in operating facilities. In addition, these

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

417

doses have been below the regulatory limits. Off-site exposures, which could affect members of the public, during periods of major decommissioning have not differed substantially from those experienced during normal operations, which are also below the regulatory limits.

4.8 Socioeconomics
There are two primary pathways through which nuclear power plant activities create socioeconomic impacts on the area surrounding the facility. The rst is through expenditures in the local community by the plant workforce and direct purchases of goods and services required for plant activities. The second pathway for socioeconomic impact is through the effects on local government tax revenues and services. When a nuclear power plant is closed and decommissioned, most of the important socioeconomic impacts will be associated with plant closure, rather than with the decommissioning process. The impacts occur either through changing employment levels and local demands for housing and infrastructure, or through decline of the local tax base and the ability of local government entities to provide public services. The effect on the local tax base and public services related to closure depends on the size of the plant-related tax base relative to the overall tax base of local government, as well as on the rate at which the tax base is lost. Experience has shown that publicly owned tax-exempt plants do not have an impact through this mechanism. In addition, fully depreciated plants or a plant that is located in an urban or urbanizing area with a large or rapidly growing tax base will also not have an impact by this mechanism. A large, newer, relatively undepreciated plant, located in a small, isolated community, is much more likely to have an impact. If the plant tax base is phased out slowly after closure, the impact is more likely to be mitigated.

encountered during industrial construction: dust and mud around the construction site, trafc and noise of trucks, and construction disarray on the site. In most cases, these impacts would not easily be visible off site. Aesthetic impacts could improve fairly rapidly in the case of an immediate DECON if the facility were dismantled, the structures removed, and the site regraded or revegetated. Impacts could also remain the same or would be similar in the case in which the structures are maintained during the decommissioning period and left standing, or throughout a long SAFSTOR or ENTOMB period. In the latter cases, the aesthetic impacts of the plant would be similar to those that occurred during the operational period.

5. SUMMARY OF DECOMMISSIONING STATUS OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Twenty-two of the commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. that are licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have permanently shut down and have either had their licenses terminated or are currently being decommissioned. Each facility has its own characteristics, depending on the decommissioning options being used for each facility and each facilitys

TABLE I
Summary of Shutdown Plant Information Parameter Reactor type Boiling water reactor Pressurized water reactor High-temperature, gas-cooled reactor Fast breeder reactor Decommissioning option SAFSTOR DECON Accident cleanup followed by storage Fuel location Fuel on site in pool No fuel on sitea Fuel on site in ISFSIb Plan to move fuel to an ISFSI between 2000 and 2005
a

Number

8 11 2 1 14 7 1 13 8 1 9

4.9 Aesthetic Issues

The aesthetic impacts of decommissioning fall into two categories: (1) impacts, such as noise, associated with decommissioning activities that are temporary and cease when decommissioning is complete and (2) the changed appearance of the site when decommissioning is complete. During decommissioning, the impact of activities on aesthetic resources would be temporary. The impacts would be limited both in terms of land disturbance and the duration of activity and would have characteristics similar to those

Includes Three Mile Island, Unit 2, which has approximately 900 kg of fuel remaining on site due to the accident. b ISFSI, Independent spent fuel storage installation.

418

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

decommissioning activities. An overview of the shutdown plants can be found in Table I, which includes 22 units shut down between 1963 and 1997. Table II summarizes important characteristics of the
TABLE II
Permanently Shutdown Plants in the United States (2003) Reactor typea Thermal power

shutdown plants. The thermal power capabilities of the reactors ranged from 23 to 3411 MWt. The reactors operated from just a few days (Shoreham) to 33 years (Big Rock Point).

Nuclear plant Plants currently in decommissioning process Big Rock Point Dresden, Unit 1 Fermi, Unit 1 GE-VBWR Haddam Neck Humboldt Bay, Unit 3 Indian Point, Unit 1 La Crosse Maine Yankee Millstone, Unit 1 Peach Bottom, Unit 1 Rancho Seco

Shutdown dateb

Decommissioning optionc

Location

Fuel status and license termination date

BWR BWR FBR BWR PWR BWR PWR BWR PWR BWR HTGR PWR

240 MW 700 MW 200 MW 50 MW 1825 MW 200 MW 615 MW 165 MW 2700 MW 2011 MW 115 MW 2772 MW

08/30/97 10/31/78 09/22/72 12/09/63 07/22/96 07/02/76 10/31/74 04/30/87 12/06/96 11/04/95 10/31/74 06/07/89

DECON SAFSTOR SAFSTORd SAFSTOR DECON SAFSTORd SAFSTOR SAFSTOR DECON SAFSTOR SAFSTOR SAFSTORd

Michigan Illinois Michigan California Connecticut California New York Wisconsin Maine Connecticut Pennsylvania California

Fuel in ISFSI Fuel in ISFSI No fuel on site No fuel on site Fuel in pool Fuel in pool Fuel in pool Fuel in pool Fuel in ISFSIe Fuel in pool No fuel on site Fuel in ISFSI/partial DECON proposed in 1997 Fuel in pool No fuel on site/ currently in DECON Approx 900 kg fuel on site/postdefueling monitored storage Fuel in ISFSI Fuel in ISFSIe Fuel in pool Fuel in pool Fuel in ISFSI/license terminated in 1997 No fuel on site/license terminated in 1992 No fuel on site/license terminated in 1995

San Onofre, Unit 1 Saxton Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Trojan Yankee Rowe Zion, Unit 1 Zion, Unit 2 Terminated licenses Fort St. Vrain Pathnder Shoreham

PWR PWR PWR

1347 MW 28 MW 2772 MW

11/30/92 05/01/72 03/28/79

SAFSTORd SAFSTORd Accident cleanup followed by storage DECON DECON SAFSTOR SAFSTOR DECON SAFSTOR DECON

California Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

PWR PWR PWR PWR HTGR BWR BWR

3411 MW 600 MW 3250 MW 3250 MW 842 MW 190 MW 2436 MW

11/09/92 10/01/91 02/21/97 09/19/96 08/18/89 09/16/67 06/28/89

Oregon Massachusetts Illinois Illinois Colorado South Dakota New York

BWR, Boiling water reactor; FBR, fast breeder reactor; PWR, pressurized water reactor; HTGR, high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor. The shutdown date corresponds to the date of the last criticality. c The option shown for each plant is the option that has been ofcially provided to the U.S. NRC. Plants in DECON may have had a short (1 to 4 years) SAFSTOR period. Likewise, plants in SAFSTOR may have performed some DECON activities or may have transitioned from the storage phase into the decontamination and dismantlement phase of SAFSTOR. d These plants have recently performed or are currently performing the decontamination and dismantlement phase of SAFSTOR. e Fuel to dry storage in an on-site independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
b

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

419

Three of the 22 plants (Fort St. Vrain, Shoreham, and Pathnder) have completed decommissioning. Two of these three (Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham) used the DECON process for decommissioning. One facility, Shoreham, operated less than three fullpower days before being shut down and decommissioned so there was relatively little contamination. One other facility, Pathnder, was placed in SAFSTOR and subsequently decommissioned. Eleven of the plants shut down prematurely. Three Mile Island, Unit 2, ceased power operations as a result of a severe accident. Three Mile Island, Unit 2, has been placed in a monitored storage mode until Unit 1 permanently ceases operation, at which time both units are to be decommissioned. Eleven of the permanently shutdown plants were part of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Demonstrations Program, including Big Rock Point; Dresden, Unit 1; Fermi, Unit 1; GE-VBWR; Humboldt Bay, Unit 3; Indian Point, Unit 1; La Crosse; Pathnder; Peach Bottom, Unit 1; Yankee Rowe; and Saxton. These plants were prototype designs that were jointly funded by the AEC and commercial utilities. The most recent of the Demonstration Program reactors to shut down was Big Rock Point, which operated for 33 years; it was permanently shut down in 1997. Seven decommissioning facilities are located on multiunit sites in which the remaining units continue to operate, and one multiunit site shut down both units permanently. All eight of these licensees chose SAFSTOR as the decommissioning option. In most cases, SAFSTOR was chosen so that all units on a site could be decommissioned simultaneously. For various reasons, however, most shutdown units have done some decontamination and dismantlement. The reasons cited for choosing DECON have included the availability of low-level waste capacity, availability of staff familiar with the plant, available funding, the licensees intent to use the land for other purposes, inuence by state or local government to complete decommissioning, or a combination of other reasons. A number of the plants have combined the DECON and SAFSTOR process either by entering shorter SAFSTOR periods or by doing an incremental DECON, allowing the plant to use resources and decommission as they go. Sites have combined the options, usually to achieve economic advantages. For example, one site decided to shorten the SAFSTOR period and to begin incremental dismantlement out of concern over future availability of a waste site and future costs of disposal. One site that

prematurely shut down had a short SAFSTOR period to allow short-lived radioactive materials to decay and to conduct more detailed planning. Safety is another reason for combining the two options. Because of seismic safety concerns, one site undertook a major dismantling project to remove a 76-m (250-foot) concrete vent stack after it had been in SAFSTOR for 10 years. The owner of the facility determines the physical condition of the site after the decommissioning process. Some intend to restore the site to green eld status at the end of decommissioning, whereas others may install a nonnuclear facility. Some will leave structures standing at the time of license termination, and others will not. While undergoing the decommissioning process, some have opted for partial site release to decrease the size of the site area.

6. CONCLUSION
There are environmental impacts of decommissioning a nuclear power facility. However, of the different options and processes for decommissioning a nuclear power facility, all of the options used in the United States to date have resulted in environmental impacts that are smaller than those that occur during construction and operation of the facility.

SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES

Nuclear Engineering  Nuclear Fission Reactors: Boiling Water and Pressurized Water Reactors  Nuclear Fuel: Design and Fabrication  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing  Nuclear Fusion Reactors  Nuclear Power Economics  Nuclear Power, History of  Nuclear Power: Risk Analysis  Nuclear Proliferation and Diversion  Nuclear Waste  Occupational Health Risks in Nuclear Power  Public Reaction to Nuclear Power Siting and Disposal

Further Reading
Nordhaus, W. D. (1997). The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and the Environment. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, D.C. Slobodien, M. J. (ed.). (1999). Decommissioning and Restoration of Nuclear Facilities: 1999 Health Physics Society Summer School Proceedings. Medical Physics Publ. Corp, Madison, Wisconsin.

420

Nuclear Power Plants, Decommissioning of

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). (2002). Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. NRC, Washington, D.C. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). (1997). Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination

of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-1496, Vol. 1. NRC, Washington, D.C. White, M. G., Norman, N. A., and Thomas, R. G. (eds.). (1995). Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Environmental Restoration at Contaminated Nuclear Sites. American Nuclear Society, Winter Meeting 1994. American Nuclear Society, Washington, D.C.